Failure to deny

Lord Deben and his team have issued a response to Owen Paterson's speech last night. There's plenty to take issue with. For example, readers will recall my amusement over their scientific travails over future rainfall, so it's fun to see that they are having similar problems with the temperature trends: they are touting a 0.05 degrees per decade rise as showing that surface temperatures have not stopped. Given that the error in the record appears to be considerably larger than 0.05 degrees in a single year, I think it's fair to say that the trend is indistinguishable from zero.

But perhaps of greater interest is the CCC's response to Paterson's central point, namely that we face a risk that the lights will go out. Here's what Lord D has come up with:

Claim 3: The lights will go out because of decarbonisation

There is no fundamental conflict between decarbonising and keeping the lights on. Keeping the lights on depends on having enough capacity available to meet demand at all times; decarbonisation depends on the bulk of generation coming from low-carbon sources. There are challenges relating to increased penetration of intermittent technologies on the grid, but these can be met given an appropriate response.

CCC, DECC, academia and many others have published many scenarios that decarbonise while maintaining system security. DECC have also introduced a capacity market to ensure sufficient capacity at all times – the first phase of that scheme qualified far more capacity than needed to keep the lights on (over 60GW compared to a 51GW requirement).

STATUS: Rejected. Building low-carbon capacity can help to keep the lights on, supported by capacity incentivised through the capacity market.

It's fair to say that if you flooded every valley in the country and carpeted the oceans and the remaining land with wind turbines, you might be able to generate enough renewable energy to meet demand.

But what the CCC doesn't seem to dispute is that we face a real risk of the lights going out.

Comments

[TinyCO2]

You oppose large efficient operations in favour of small inefficient suppliers that are attracted by subsidies alone. The cheapest solution is to get rid of big users altogether and just import the stuff they make from countries that don't give a toss about CO2 reduction. Why not get rid of all manufacturing, put most people ouside London out of work and then they could do their washing and cooking any time of the day? Gee, the solutions are really quite simple, aren't they?

[Raff]

Parallel supplies? I doubt it. You said it yourself, your company couldn't compete with grid power and dismantled its generators. Yet you think a company would go to the expense of building generating capacity and then use it only on the odd occasion when the grid was under stress, at which point it drops grid load and powers up its own system? Duh!

[not banned yet]

Raff:

"I gave you some pointers, go and look. You can't possibly believe that grid storage using batteries, flywheels and other tech is not happening unless you have your head stuck firmly in the sand. Or unless you just read the Bishop, Watts and the like who do their best to avoid reporting anything that could undermine their preferred dogma."

Whatever - no concrete examples with numbers and context from Raff because he doesn't have any. Sure I can google for info - just like I can google for info on unicorn sightings.